Asymptotic behavior and existence of solutions for singular elliptic equations
Riccardo Durastanti

TL;DR
This paper investigates the asymptotic behavior and existence of solutions for singular semilinear elliptic equations as the parameter b3 tends to infinity, providing new insights into solution limits and optimal existence conditions.
Contribution
It introduces new results on the asymptotic limits of solutions and establishes optimal existence criteria for related singular elliptic equations under different assumptions on the data.
Findings
Identifies the limit behavior of solutions as b3 infinity.
Provides conditions for the existence of solutions based on the positivity of the function f.
Derives optimal existence results for a related elliptic equation involving gradient terms.
Abstract
We study the asymptotic behavior, as tends to infinity, of solutions for the homogeneous Dirichlet problem associated to singular semilinear elliptic equations whose model is where is an open, bounded subset of and is a bounded function. We deal with the existence of a limit equation under two different assumptions on : either strictly positive on every compactly contained subset of or only nonnegative. Through this study we deduce optimal existence results of positive solutions for the homogeneous Dirichlet problem associated to
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Asymptotic behavior and existence of solutions for singular elliptic equations
Riccardo Durastanti
Dipartimento di Scienze di Base e Applicate per l’ Ingegneria,
“Sapienza” Università di Roma, Via Scarpa 16, 00161 Roma, Italy
Abstract.
We study the asymptotic behavior, as tends to infinity, of solutions for the homogeneous Dirichlet problem associated to singular semilinear elliptic equations whose model is
[TABLE]
where is an open, bounded subset of and is a bounded function. We deal with the existence of a limit equation under two different assumptions on : either strictly positive on every compactly contained subset of or only nonnegative. Through this study we deduce optimal existence results of positive solutions for the homogeneous Dirichlet problem associated to
[TABLE]
Key words and phrases:
Semilinear elliptic equations, Quasilinear elliptic equations, Singular elliptic equations, Singular natural growth gradient terms, Asymptotic behavior
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
35B40, 35J25, 35J61, 35J62, 35J75
Contents
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Main assumptions and statement of the results
- 3 Estimates from above and from below
- 4 Proofs of Theorems 2.2 and 2.3
- 5 One-dimensional solutions and Proof of Theorem 2.6
- 6 Proof of Theorem 2.7
- 7 Open problems
1. Introduction
In recent years, existence, uniqueness and regularity of nonnegative solutions of the following semilinear singular problem have been widely studied:
[TABLE]
Here is an open bounded subset of , with , is a nonnegative function belonging to some Lebesgue space and .
Existence and uniqueness of a classical solution of (1.1) are proved in [39, 19], when is a positive Hölder continuous function in and is a smooth domain. In the same framework, Lazer and McKenna in [29] prove that if and only if and that, if , the solution does not belong to , while in [23], under the weaker assumption that is only nonnegative and bounded, Del Pino proves existence and uniqueness of a positive distributional solution belonging to . These results are generalized by Lair and Shaker in [28].
Existence of a positive distributional solution with data merely in is proved by Boccardo and Orsina in [8]. The authors show that this solution, if , belongs to an homogeneous Sobolev space larger than , if , it belongs to and, finally, if , it belongs to (see Theorem 3.1 below). In the last case the boundary condition is assumed in a weaker sense, i.e. .
Existence and regularity of solutions of (1.1) with data in suitable Lebesgue space or with measure data are also studied in [18, 11, 12, 35, 26, 17], while, in case of a nonlinear principal part, we refer to [10, 22, 33]. We underline also the study of qualitative properties of solutions of (1.1) contained in [13, 24].
As concerns uniqueness of solutions of (1.1) the literature is more limited. If a solution belongs to , uniqueness is proved in [7], while in [40] a necessary and sufficient condition in order to have solutions is shown. Moreover we can find uniqueness results of solutions out of finite energy space in [14, 25, 34].
We observe that if we perform in (1.1) the change of variable
[TABLE]
we formally transform (1.1) into the quasilinear singular equation with singular and gradient quadric lower order term
[TABLE]
Equation (1.2) is a particular case of the quasilinear singular equation
[TABLE]
where and are positive real numbers.
One usually says that the quadratic growth in of (1.3) is natural as this growth is invariant under the simple change of variable , where is a smooth function. In this case the equation (1.3) is also singular since the lower order term is singular where the solution is zero.
Problem (1.3) has been recently studied by several authors. Existence of classical solutions is studied by Porru and Vitolo in [36], while existence of a positive solution when is bounded and strictly positive on every compactly contained subset of and is contained in [4, 2]. Moreover, if , Boccardo proves in [6] existence of a positive weak solution under weaker assumptions on , that is only nonnegative and belonging to .
As concerns the case , existence of positive weak solutions is proved in [6, 32] for if and is nonnegative in , while in [3] existence is proved for every and for every if the datum is strictly positive on every compactly contained subset of . Moreover existence of positive solutions in the same framework of [3], under a weaker assumption on , that is strictly positive on every compactly contained subset of a neighborhood of , is proved in [16]. Nonexistence results for positive solutions in of (1.3) are given, if , in [3, 43].
The study of the uniqueness of weak solutions of (1.3) is more limited in literature. We refer to [5] where uniqueness is proved if and to [15] for . We underline also the multiplicity result of weak solutions contained in [42].
Without the aim to be exhaustive we also refer the reader to [20, 27] in which the existence of solutions of (1.3) is studied also in presence of sign-changing data, while we refer to [9, 21, 41] for the study of (1.3) in the parabolic case.
Looking at the results for (1.3), the case and is a borderline case, requiring a stronger assumption on the datum in order to prove existence of positive weak solutions. In this paper we give an answer to the question whether this stronger assumption is really necessary, or if it is only technical.
From now onwards, we mean by strictly positive a function strictly positive on every compactly contained subset of , that is for every subset compactly contained in there exists a positive constant such that almost everywhere in .
Since the case and can be seen as the limit case as tends to infinity of equation (1.2), and since this equation is connected to equation (1.1), one can try to study problem (1.3), in the borderline case and , by looking at the asymptotic behavior, as tends to infinity, of the solutions of (1.1) under the assumption that is either nonnegative or strictly positive.
In this paper we prove, if is strictly positive in , letting tend to infinity, that there is no limit equation to (1.1) and we find a positive solution to
[TABLE]
recovering the existence result contained in [4, 2, 3].
If we assume only nonnegative, more precisely zero in a neighborhood of , we prove that there is a limit equation to (1.1) and we give a one-dimensional example providing that the assumption strictly positive cannot be relaxed in order to have a positive solution to (1.4) as a limit of approximations.
Our results imply that the existence results contained in [4, 32, 2, 3, 16] are sharp.
The plan of the paper is the following: in Section 2 we give the definitions of solution to our problems and we state the results that will be proved in the paper. In Section 3 we prove a priori estimates for the solutions of (1.1) both from above and from below, that allow us to pass to the limit in (1.1) and (1.2) as tends to infinity. In Section 4 we pass to the limit in (1.1) under the two different assumptions on . In Section 5 we pass to the limit in (1.2), in the case strictly positive, obtaining the existence of positive solutions of (1.4). In Section 6 we show, if is only nonnegative, the one-dimensional example of nonexistence of positive solutions to (1.4) obtained by approximation. To conclude, in Section 7 we present some open problems.
Notations
Let be an open and bounded subset of , with . We denote by its boundary, by the Lebesgue measure of a Lebesgue measurable subset of , and we define .
By we mean the space of continuous functions with compact support in and by the space of continuous functions in that are zero on . Analogously, if , (resp. ) is the space of functions with compact support in (resp. functions that are zero on ).
If no otherwise specified, we will denote by several constants whose value may change from line to line. These values will only depend on the data (for instance may depend on , ) but they will never depend on the indexes of the sequences we will introduce.
Moreover, for any , will be the Hölder conjugate exponent of , while for any , will be the Sobolev conjugate exponent of . We will also denote by any quantity such that
[TABLE]
We will use the following well-known functions defined for a fixed
[TABLE]
with .
We also mention the definition of the Gamma function
[TABLE]
where is a complex number with positive real part, recalling that and .
Finally we define , with , the following function
[TABLE]
In what follows we will use that for every we have, if , that
[TABLE]
2. Main assumptions and statement of the results
Let be a matrix which satisfies, for some positive constants , for almost every and for every the following assumptions:
[TABLE]
Let be a real number. We consider the following semilinear elliptic problem with a singular nonlinearity
[TABLE]
To deal with existence for solutions to problem (2.2) we give the following definition of distributional solution contained in [8].
Definition 2.1**.**
A function in such that
[TABLE]
is a distributional solution of (2.2) if the following conditions are satisfied:
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We underline that, if , the condition gives meaning to the boundary condition of (2.2).
We start studying the asymptotic behavior of the sequence of solutions to problem (2.2), with . Our results are the following:
Theorem 2.2**.**
Let be a nonnegative function. Suppose that there exists such that in , and such that for every there exists such that in . Let be a sequence of distributional solutions of
[TABLE]
Then is bounded in , so that it converges, up to subsequences, to a bounded function which is identically equal to 1 almost everywhere in . Furthermore, the sequence is bounded in , and if is the -weak limit in the sense of measures of , is concentrated on , and in is the solution of
[TABLE]
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let be a function belonging to such that for every there exists such that in . Let be an increasing sequence of compactly contained subsets of such that their union is , and let be the distributional solution of
[TABLE]
Then is bounded in , so that it converges, up to subsequences, to a bounded function , which is identically equal to 1 almost everywhere in . Moreover, the sequence is unbounded in , and there is no limit equation for .
If , we have that is a sequence of distributional solutions to the following problem
[TABLE]
To be complete we give the definitions of distributional and weak solution for quasilinear elliptic equations with singular and gradient quadratic lower order term whose model is
[TABLE]
where .
Definition 2.4**.**
A function in is a weak solution of (2.7) if the following conditions are satisfied:
- i)
* almost everywhere in ,*
- ii)
* belongs to ,*
- iii)
it holds
[TABLE]
Definition 2.5**.**
A function in is a distributional solution of (2.7) if the following conditions are satisfied:
- i)
* almost everywhere in ,*
- ii)
* belongs to ,*
- iii)
it holds
[TABLE]
By passing to the limit in (2.6), we prove, in the case strictly positive, the following existence theorem of weak solution to problem (2.8).
Theorem 2.6**.**
Let be a function such that for every there exists such that in . Then is bounded in , so that it converges, up to subsequences, to a bounded nonnegative function which is a weak solution of
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if is zero in a neighborhood of , we show by a one-dimensional explicit example that the function obtained as limit of our approximation is zero in a subset of with strictly positive measure. In other words, we will prove the following result.
Theorem 2.7**.**
Let and . Let in be the weak solution of
[TABLE]
Let be a weak solution of
[TABLE]
then weakly converges to a function in and , belonging to , is a classical solution of
[TABLE]
Moreover in and in .
Remark 2.8**.**
It follows from Theorem 2.7 that if is only nonnegative we cannot obtain by approximation a positive solution of (2.8). This implies that the assumption strictly positive is necessary (and not only technical) to have positive solutions on the whole to problem (2.8). Hence the existence results contained in [4, 32, 2, 3, 16] are optimal.
3. Estimates from above and from below
In [8], existence results for distributional solutions of (2.2) have been proved. To be more precise, we have the following theorem in the case .
Theorem 3.1**.**
Let , and let be in , with in , not identically zero. Then there exists a distributional solution of (2.2), with in . Moreover we can extend the class of test functions in the sense that
[TABLE]
Sketch of the proof of Theorem 3.1.
Following [8], let in and consider the approximated problems
[TABLE]
The existence of a solution can be easily proved by means of the Schauder fixed point theorem. Since the sequence is increasing in , standard elliptic estimates imply that the sequence is increasing, so that , and there exists the pointwise limit of . Since (by the maximum principle) for every there exists such that in , it then follows that (and so ) has the same property.
Choosing as test function in (3.2) we obtain, using (2.1), that
[TABLE]
Therefore, is bounded in . Choosing as test function in (3.2), with in , we obtain, using again (2.1),
[TABLE]
Hence, if , recalling that in , we have, by Young’s inequality,
[TABLE]
Since is bounded in (recall that is bounded in , so that is bounded in by Poincaré inequality, and that ), we thus have
[TABLE]
so that the sequence is bounded in . Let now and choose as test function in (3.2). We obtain, using (2.1),
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
Starting from this inequality, and reasoning as in Theorem 4.2 of [37], we can prove that is uniformly bounded in , so that belongs to as well.
Once we have the a priori estimates on , we can pass to the limit in the approximate equation with test functions in with compact support; indeed
[TABLE]
since is weakly convergent to in , and
[TABLE]
by the Lebesgue theorem, since on the support of . ∎
Since the formulation of distributional solution for (2.2) is not suitable for our purposes, we are going to better specify the class of test functions which are admissible for the problem (2.2) to obtain estimates from above for . We start with the following theorem.
Theorem 3.2**.**
The solution of (2.2) given by Theorem 3.1 is such that:
- i)
belongs to ;
- ii)
[TABLE]
- iii)
[TABLE]
for some constant , independent on .
Proof..
We begin by observing that, using the boundedness in of the sequence of solutions of (3.2), and the boundedness of in , the sequence is bounded in for every . In particular, is bounded in . This yields that belongs to as well; i.e., i) is proved.
We now fix a positive in and take as test function in (3.2). We obtain
[TABLE]
Dropping the first term (which is positive), we obtain
[TABLE]
Letting tend to infinity, and using the boundedness of in , we obtain
[TABLE]
Since belongs to , we obtain by density
[TABLE]
which is (3.3). We now choose
[TABLE]
as test function in (3.3) (recall that , so that as well). We obtain, setting ,
[TABLE]
Recalling (2.1) we therefore have
[TABLE]
From this inequality, reasoning once again as in [37], we obtain that there exists such that
[TABLE]
which then yields (3.4). ∎
Remark 3.3**.**
We observe that if we also assume that is compactly contained in in Theorem 3.1, then belongs to and belongs to . As a matter of fact, taking as test function in (3.2), we have
[TABLE]
so that belongs to . Moreover, using the Lebesgue theorem and that , we deduce that strongly converges to in . As a consequence we can extend the class of test functions for (3.1) to .
Remark 3.4**.**
Under the assumptions of Remark 3.3, thanks to the results contained in [7], it follows that is the unique weak solution of (2.2).
From now on, , and we will denote by the solution of (2.3); therefore, by the results of Theorem 3.2, we have that belongs to , and that
[TABLE]
which in particular implies that
[TABLE]
We now consider the estimates from below on the sequence . We first need to enunciate two technical lemmas that we will use during the proof of these estimates.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let be a function such that is nonincreasing and is nondecreasing. Moreover, suppose that there exist , and satisfying
[TABLE]
Then, for every , there exists such that
[TABLE]
where .
Proof..
See [38]. ∎
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let be a continuous and increasing function, with , such that
[TABLE]
Then, for any and , there exists a function depending on with , , , , for every and satisfying
[TABLE]
Proof..
See [30], Lemma 1.1. ∎
We are ready to prove the estimates from below.
Theorem 3.7**.**
Let be the solution of (2.3) given by Theorem 3.1, and let be such that for every there exists satisfying in . Then there exists such that
[TABLE]
Proof..
Let , by the assumptions we have that
[TABLE]
Let in be such that
[TABLE]
We consider the function given by Lemma 3.6, in correspondence of , and of an arbitrary constant . Define
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
and, for ,
[TABLE]
Note that is well defined, since where one has . We have
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
where . Therefore, since belongs to and it is locally positive, and belong to . Consequently the positive function belongs to , has compact support and can be chosen as test function in (3.1), with , to obtain
[TABLE]
Since
[TABLE]
the previous identity can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
Since the first term is negative, we have, using (2.1) and (3.7), as well as the fact that , that
[TABLE]
Using Young’s inequality in the right hand side, we have
[TABLE]
so that we have
[TABLE]
Observing that
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
Using that and (3.8), we deduce
[TABLE]
Applying Lemma 3.6, with , and choosing the constant as
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Hence, we obtain
[TABLE]
Dropping the positive terms in the left hand side, we have
[TABLE]
Moreover, denoting with the constant given by the Sobolev embedding theorem and recalling that in , we deduce, for , that
[TABLE]
Defining , we have, for all , that
[TABLE]
Now we consider . Define
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for every and . Choosing and such that \displaystyle\|\nabla\eta\|_{\lower 4.0pt\hbox{\scriptstyle L^{\infty}(\Omega) }}\leq\frac{c_{1}}{R-r} and taking and in (3.9), we deduce
[TABLE]
where . From this inequality it follows, applying Lemma 3.5, that there exists (independent on ) such that
[TABLE]
Recalling the definition of in terms of , we therefore have
[TABLE]
which is (3.6). ∎
We conclude this section with the following remark:
Remark 3.8**.**
As a consequence of estimates (3.5) and (3.6), we thus have
[TABLE]
Repeating this argument for every contained in , we have that converges to 1 on .
4. Proofs of Theorems 2.2 and 2.3
We start with the proof of Theorem 2.2, in which we recall that is compactly contained in .
Proof of Theorem 2.2.
We have already proved that
[TABLE]
so that is bounded in . This implies that there exists in such that *-weakly converges to in and, by Remark 3.8, in . We are now going to prove that the right hand side of the equation in (2.3) is bounded in uniformly in . As a matter of fact, if is the solution of (2.3), from Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.3, it follows that , in and belongs to . Then we have, by the results in [37], that
[TABLE]
where is the Green function of the linear differential operator defined by the adjoint matrix of , i.e., the unique duality solution of
[TABLE]
where is the Dirac delta concentrated at in . It is well-known (see for example [31]), that for every there exists such that
[TABLE]
Fix now in , let be such that and belongs to , and let be such that (4.2) holds. We then have
[TABLE]
Therefore, there exists such that
[TABLE]
i.e., the right hand side of the equation in (2.3) is bounded in . Observe now that for every there exists such that
[TABLE]
Therefore,
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
i.e., the right hand side converges to zero in . Let now be the bounded Radon measure such that
[TABLE]
Clearly, by the assumption on , , and, by (4.4), , so that . Moreover, by Remark 3.3, we can take as test function in (2.3) and we obtain, using (2.1), (4.1) and (4.3), that
[TABLE]
then weakly converges to in as tends to infinity. Recalling that, by Remark 3.3, is the (unique) weak solution of (2.3), that is
[TABLE]
we obtain, letting tend to infinity, that
[TABLE]
so that is a distributional solution with finite energy of the limit problem (2.4). ∎
Remark 4.1**.**
We observe that is also the unique duality solution of (2.3), i.e.
[TABLE]
where is the unique weak solution of
[TABLE]
This implies, letting tend to infinity in (4.7) and using the standard results contained in [37], that is the unique duality solution of (2.4).
Now we prove Theorem 2.3. Here let us recall that for every there exists such that in and that is an increasing sequence of compactly contained subsets of such that their union is .
Proof of Theorem 2.3.
Let be the solution of (2.5). It follows, from the fact that has compact support in and using Remark 3.3, that belongs to and belongs to . Once again as a consequence of Theorem 3.2 we have that is bounded in . Then there exists in such that *-weakly converges to in . Moreover, by Remark 3.8, we deduce that uniformly converges to in , for every , hence in . If we assume that the sequence is bounded in , then it *-weakly converges to in the topology of measure. Repeating the same arguments contained in Remark 4.1 we obtain
[TABLE]
where in is the weak solution of (4.8). Then in is the duality solution of (2.4), so that belongs to . Since in , there is a contradiction. Hence, the right hand side of (2.5) is not bounded in and there cannot be any limit equation. ∎
5. One-dimensional solutions and Proof of Theorem 2.6
First we prove a result that makes the link between a distributional solution of (2.3) and a distributional solution with finite energy of (2.6) rigorous.
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let be a nonnegative function belonging to . If is a solution of (2.3) given by Theorem 3.1, then is a distributional solution of (2.6) with finite energy.
Proof.
We already know, by Theorem 3.2, that belongs to , so that belongs to . With the same argument we have that belongs to . Let be a function in , we have that is a function in with compact support (). Then we can take as test function in (3.1) and we obtain that
[TABLE]
If we rewrite (5.1), using that in , we have
[TABLE]
Hence, by definition of , we deduce that
[TABLE]
that is is a distributional solution with finite energy of (2.6). ∎
Remark 5.2**.**
We note that for every we know, by Theorem 3.1, that in . Then in . Using this property and that has finite energy we can extend the class of test functions for (2.6) from to with compact support.
Now we study (2.3) in the one-dimensional case to better understand what happens, if is strictly positive, to and to the related by passing to the limit as tends to infinity.
Fix in . We consider (2.3) with , , and in . So that we have
[TABLE]
In order to study (5.2) we focus on the solutions of the following Cauchy problem
[TABLE]
where is a positive real number that we will choose later. Defining , we can rewrite (5.3) as
[TABLE]
Since is Lipschitz continuous near , there exists a unique solution locally near . It is easy, by a classical iteration argument, to extend the definition interval of to , where is the first zero of (i.e. ) when it occurs, otherwise . Hence is concave (), decreasing () and for and it belongs to .
Now multiplying the equation by we have
[TABLE]
hence, integrating on , with , and recalling that , we have
[TABLE]
Since we deduce
[TABLE]
therefore we can divide (5.5) by and integrate on , with , to obtain
[TABLE]
Setting in the first integral of (5.6) and recalling that , we have
[TABLE]
Once again we can perform the change of variable to deduce
[TABLE]
Define for , then and is a continuous positive and increasing function in , so that . Thanks to the results in [1] we obtain
[TABLE]
where is defined in (1.5). Thus we can extend in and it is uniformly bounded for every and . Moreover, from (5.8) and computing (5.7) for , we have
[TABLE]
We observe that and are such that if tends to infinity also tends to infinity. Recalling that we want a solution for (5.2) that is zero if , imposing for every in we find that
[TABLE]
Hence, with this value of , for every in and belongs to . Thanks to the initial condition , we can extend to an even function on in the following way
[TABLE]
So belongs to and is the classical solution of
[TABLE]
Setting for in we have that belongs to and is the classical solution of (5.2). This implies that is a classical solution (in ) of
[TABLE]
that is (2.6) in the one-dimensional case. Multiplying the equation (5.12) by and integrating by parts on we obtain that is bounded in . By definition of , this implies that is bounded in . Using the Rellich-Kondrachov theorem we deduce that there exist a subsequence, still indexed by , and a function in such that uniformly converges to in . We want to make explicit.
By definition of it follows that
[TABLE]
uniformly in . Combining (5.7) and (5.10) we obtain
[TABLE]
Passing to the limit in (5.13) as tends to infinity we obtain the explicit expression of . Indeed we have, by Lebesgue theorem and from well known result of integral calculus, that
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
So is an even function defined on , in particular on .
Fix now in . We want to prove that tends to as tends to infinity. We assume, by contradiction, that
[TABLE]
Defining , we deduce, for large enough, that . So that
[TABLE]
and, letting tend to infinity, we obtain . Since , we find a contradiction, then tends to , as tends to infinity, for every in .
Now we return to problem (5.2) recalling that . From (5.10) and using that tends to , as tends to infinity, for in , it follows that
[TABLE]
This result is exactly the one-dimensional version of Remark 3.8. From (5.10), we deduce that
[TABLE]
so that we have that there exists a limit function such that
[TABLE]
After a little algebra we obtain that is a classical solution of
[TABLE]
that is (2.8). Thus we have proved Theorem 2.6 in the one-dimensional case.
Finally we prove Theorem 2.6 in the -dimensional case, here we recall that is strictly positive.
Proof of Theorem 2.6.
Let be the solution of (2.3) given by Theorem 3.1. It follows from Proposition 5.1 that are distributional solutions of (2.6).
By assumption for every there exists a positive constant such that . This implies, by Theorem 3.7, that
[TABLE]
then
[TABLE]
with a positive constant depending only on . So is locally uniformly positive. Moreover, by Theorem 3.2, we have that belongs to and
[TABLE]
where is a positive constant.
Choosing a nonnegative belonging to as test function in (2.6) and dropping the nonnegative integral involving the quadratic gradient term, we deduce that
[TABLE]
As a consequence of the density of in we can extend (5.15) for every nonnegative in . Choosing as test function and using Hölder’s inequality and the Sobolev embedding theorem, we obtain
[TABLE]
where is the Sobolev constant. Hence is bounded in . Thus, up to a subsequence, it follows that there exists belonging to such that
[TABLE]
In order to pass to the limit in (2.6) we first prove that strongly converges to in , that is
[TABLE]
We consider the function defined in (1.6) and, choosing as test function in (2.6), we obtain
[TABLE]
It follows from (5.16) and using Lebesgue theorem that
[TABLE]
Thus
[TABLE]
Moreover, setting and using (5.14), we deduce that
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
We can add the following term to (5.19)
[TABLE]
and, noting that by (5.16) this quantity tends to [math] letting go to infinity, we obtain
[TABLE]
Since using once again (5.16) we have
[TABLE]
we deduce that
[TABLE]
Choosing , thanks to (1.7) we have that , hence (5.17) holds and
[TABLE]
Now we pass to the limit in (2.6) with test functions belonging to with compact support. We have, by (5.17), that
[TABLE]
and, using (5.21), (5.14) with and Lebesgue theorem, we deduce
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
for all in with compact support.
Let be a nonnegative function in . Let in be a sequence of nonnegative functions that converges to strongly in . Taking , which belongs to with compact support, as test function in (5.22), we obtain
[TABLE]
Since strongly converges to in we have
[TABLE]
Moreover is a nonnegative function that converges to almost everywhere in . Applying Fatou’s lemma on the left hand side of (5.23) and using (5.24) we deduce that
[TABLE]
so that belongs to . Since , by Lebesgue theorem, we have
[TABLE]
As a consequence of (5.24) and (5.25) we obtain
[TABLE]
Furthermore, taking as test function in (5.26) and dropping a positive term, we deduce
[TABLE]
Applying Fatou’s lemma on the left hand side of (5.27) and noting that we have
[TABLE]
so belongs to . Since we can write each as the difference between its positive and its negative part, we trivially deduce that (5.26) holds for all , so that is a weak solution of (2.8). ∎
Remark 5.3**.**
We note that we can also consider test functions only belonging to in (5.26). Indeed let be in , then is a positive function belonging to that strongly converges to in as tends to infinity. Taking as test function in (5.26) and letting tend to infinity, by Lebesgue theorem and Beppo Levi theorem, we deduce
[TABLE]
In the same way we obtain
[TABLE]
so that subtracting (5.29) to (5.28) we have that (5.26) holds for every belonging to .
Remark 5.4**.**
To prove that is bounded in and (5.16) we only used that is nonnegative and belongs to .
6. Proof of Theorem 2.7
Here we prove Theorem 2.7. We fix in .
Proof of Theorem 2.7.
First we study the behavior of the weak solution of (2.9) given by Theorem 3.1. In order to study we use the construction of one-dimensional solutions done in the previous section, in which we have proved that there exists a function in classical solution of
[TABLE]
where is the first zero of . We recall that , is concave () and decreasing () for every in . Moreover we have obtained that
[TABLE]
and, by integrating, that
[TABLE]
for every in . So that is a nonnegative, continuous and strictly increasing function. Recalling (5.8) we have that , that is uniformly bounded, thus we can extend in to have . Then there exists the inverse function . Furthermore we recall that
[TABLE]
In order to have for every we can choose , with a positive constant such that
[TABLE]
Now we consider the following Cauchy problem
[TABLE]
For every in we have that (6.1) and (6.6) are the same problem, so that there exists classical solution of (6.6) in . Since for every , we deduce that in . It follows from (6.2) and by the definition of that
[TABLE]
Since we want that for every in , we look for such that . With a little algebra it follows from (6.7) and (6.3) that is possible if and only if, for every fixed , we have
[TABLE]
By Lemma 6.2 below there exists a sequence such that (6.8) holds for every , hence we have that belonging to is such that
[TABLE]
We want that in . This is true if and only if . If, by contradiction, we have in and in , so that, by , we deduce in . It follows from that , that is a contradiction. Then we obtain , in and, by (6.4), that
[TABLE]
Thus is bounded and, up to subsequences, there exists a positive real number such that
[TABLE]
and, respectively,
[TABLE]
As shown in the previous section, it follows from (6.3) that
[TABLE]
Now we suppose that . Fix , so that . We know that for large enough
[TABLE]
By passing to the limit as tends to infinity and using (6.11) we obtain , that is . This is a contradiction, then and, therefore, .
Recalling that in and using, once again, (6.11) we have
[TABLE]
It follows from (6.8) and using that for every that
[TABLE]
hence, by (6.9), we obtain that and that
[TABLE]
Therefore, by the initial condition , we can extend to an even function defined in as follows
[TABLE]
so that belonging to is a weak solution of (2.9). By Remark 3.4 there is a unique weak solution of (2.9), hence for every in and in .
Moreover, by Proposition 5.1, setting , we have that in is a weak solution of (2.10) and, by Remark 5.4, that there exists a function such that weakly converges to in and almost everywhere in . As a consequence of (6.12), (6.13) and (6.14) we deduce that
[TABLE]
so that belongs to . Furthermore, with a little algebra, it follows that is a classical solution of (2.11). ∎
Remark 6.1**.**
From the proof of Theorem 2.7 we deduce that pointwise converges to defined as follows
[TABLE]
Moreover, by Theorem 2.2, weakly converges to in . Hence we have that
[TABLE]
and is a distributional solution of
[TABLE]
So that we have completely recovered the results of Theorem 2.2.
To be complete we show the technical lemma that we needed to prove the theorem.
Lemma 6.2**.**
Let belong to , with . Let be the classical solution of
[TABLE]
Let be the first zero of . Then there exists a unique in such that and
[TABLE]
where is defined as
[TABLE]
for in .
Proof.
It follows from the proof of Theorem 2.7 that if then there exists classical solution of (6.15) in , with .
Now we define as
[TABLE]
It is obvious that is continuous on for every in , so that is continuous. Fix . Recalling that
[TABLE]
we deduce . Moreover we state that for every in . Indeed, since near and using the initial conditions, we obtain that near . If, by contradiction, there exists in such that we have that . We know, by (6.2), that
[TABLE]
that is a contradiction. Hence we have that is monotone increasing in . This implies that also is monotone increasing in . By letting tend to the boundary of and recalling that
[TABLE]
we deduce
[TABLE]
Applying Bolzano’s theorem we obtain that there exists such that , that is (6.16). Since is monotone increasing, is unique. ∎
7. Open problems
We are now studying the nonexistence of positive solutions of (2.8) in the -dimensional case with only nonnegative. More precisely we assume that is a nonnegative function and that there exists such that in , and such that for every there exists such that in .
We observe that from Remark 6.1 it follows that , given by Theorem 2.7, is a classical solution of
[TABLE]
Our conjecture is that it is true also for . More precisely we think that the following result holds.
Conjecture 7.1**.**
Let be the function given by Theorem 2.2, with . Then is a classical solution of
[TABLE]
With a similar idea we think that Theorem 2.7 holds for .
Conjecture 7.2**.**
Let be the solution of (2.3) given by Theorem 3.1, with . Let be the sequence of solutions of (2.6). Then is bounded in , so that it converges, up to subsequences, to a bounded nonnegative function . Moreover is a weak solution of
[TABLE]
and in .
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] M. Abramowitz and I.A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions with Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables , National Bureau of Standards Applied Mathematics Series 55 (1965), Dover, New York.
- 2[2] D. Arcoya, S. Barile and P.J. Martínez-Aparicio, Singular quasilinear equations with quadratic growth in the gradient without sign condition , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 350 (2009), 401-408.
- 3[3] D. Arcoya, J. Carmona, T. Leonori, P.J. Martínez-Aparicio, L. Orsina and F. Petitta, Existence and nonexistence of solutions for singular quadratic quasilinear equations , J. Differential Equations 246 (2009), 4006-4042.
- 4[4] D. Arcoya and P.J. Martínez-Aparicio, Quasilinear equations with natural growth , Rev. Mat. Iberoamericana 24 (2008), 597-616.
- 5[5] D. Arcoya and S. Segura de León, Uniqueness of solutions for some elliptic equations with a quadratic gradient term , ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 16 (2010), 327-336.
- 6[6] L. Boccardo, Dirichlet problems with singular and gradient quadratic lower order terms , ESAIM Control Optim. Calc. Var. 14 (2008), 411-426.
- 7[7] L. Boccardo and J. Casado-Díaz, Some properties of solutions of some semilinear elliptic singular problems and applications to the G-convergence , Asymptot. Anal. 86 (2014), 1-15.
- 8[8] L. Boccardo and L. Orsina, Semilinear elliptic equations with singular nonlinearities , Calc. Var. and PD Es 37 (2010), 363-380.
